On 10/8/2019 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We might interpret the wave differently. Of course, from what I have proven about “digital mechanism”, I expect physics describing only the physical reality we access to. The wave is epistemic, not ontic. I think that your problem is that you take the notion of “world” too much seriously.
You tend to think only what is fundamental should be taken "seriously". But my view is that science's job is to understand the world we experience and in general this may be quite different from the ontology of some theory explaining it. So from my standpoint the problem is explaining "worlds" and given current physical theories that implies connecting quantum mechanics to experience. If we accept that experience is brain process and is therefore (c.f. Tegmark) classical this just means connecting QM to the classical. So what is the QM representation of a classical "world". In CI it's just a projection onto some result subspace, where the subspace is already a classical world. So CI just assumes there's an answer. In Everett's QM that "world" needs an explanation/definition/construction.
Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/317b62a5-8f69-bc60-11c6-f76d52b5ae56%40verizon.net.
